He supported Second Amendment when in the legislature, Kander claims. But he also supports “background checks. And he’d like to see Blunt put a gun together with as much skill as he does.

Yeah, Kander’s good at that, but he’s got a curious way of showing support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Because he voted against a bill “that lowers the minimum age for a concealed weapon permit, allows deadly force in instances of private property protection, and allows concealed firearms in any higher education institution.”

The second ad spotlight’s Kander’s foreign military service and cites “unprecedented challenges and threats to our country … because this fight’s here at home.”

Knowing that, it’s fair to ask why Kander “voiced support for elements of President Obama’s executive amnesty program and has been a vocal opponent of immigration enforcement measures in the past.” Does he really believe it’s a good idea to allow foreigners to enter the country – “legally” and illegally – including from areas of the world hostile to the U.S.? Especially when many are undocumented, and for those who are, the documentation is hardly comprehensive?

That certainly will cause the “fight here at home” to heat up. Especially when the “pathway to citizenship” creates a Democrat supermajority, allowing the collectivists to pass any gun law they like, and appoint judges who will uphold them.

Here’s the thing – just because Kander is skilled with a rifle doesn’t mean he’s committed to the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. Clearly he’s not. If knowing your way around a weapon is what we’re asked to go by, Lon Horiuchi used to be considered a pretty good shot – at least until that one time he missed.

And if the object is to take skills learned in foreign battlefields to enhance domestic security against terror, how importing populations inimical to Liberty values and then seeding/embedding them throughout the Republic will achieve that is left unexplained.

We’ve seen time and again military men who have proven their valor in the field fall short when it comes to applying their energies toward government adherence to the Constitution. By the same token, plenty of Oath Keepers have sacrificed and served with distinction, and they can put a rifle together while blindfolded as well. And none of them have felt compelled to turn their backs on that which they swore an oath to defend in order to pursue political power.

Putting guns together while blindfolded is not the issue – dismantling freedom with eyes wide open is.

Help us defend the Constitutionagainst ALL enemies, foreign and domestic!

Donate here to support our mission and sustain our volunteers. Or join Oath Keepers here. You do NOT have to be prior service to join! All patriots are welcome. We are all in this together.

We need your support and your help. God bless.

And please "like" us on social media, so we can better keep you informed:

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

12 comments

Another self styled “supporter” of OUR Constitution who wants to cherry pick the parts he will support and the parts he won’t. Those who replace the 2nd Amendment’s period with a comma and add the word “but” cannot be trusted to defend any portion of the Constitution that they may, at some point in time, find inconvenient. As far as I can determine, the phrase “except for…” does not exist in any oath sworn by military, law enforcement, or elected officials.
[W3]

Nor will you find it in our Founding documents.All men from the age of 16 to 60 whether given oath or not is born under the Oath to defend the founding documents of our Country.Those in Washington getting paid money from outside sources to cede away our birth right,should be tried and hung for their treason!

He was required to take and KEEP an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution, and it matters not what branch he SERVED IN in the military anymore then it matters what branch he SERVES WITHIN (unless he is meets all three requirements and then is LAWFULLY elected to US President), nor does the political party he belongs to matter. None of that matters EXCEPT that he was required to take and KEEP that Oath.

He has proven that he is an Oath Breaker, a domestic enemy of the USA and the American people. Those are the only things that SHOULD be of interest to any real American.

The moment I read those items and what he has been doing, the rest is smoke and mirrors for the “dumbed down” that he was already up to no good for our nation and the American people..

This early on he already cannot keep his Oath because look at what he worked to produce to “amaze’ the dumbed down into believing that he stands for anything American so that they will “vote” for him.

/sigh

God Bless and Stay Safe All,

Cal
If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

In today’s political climate, all Democrat politicians must be classified as anti-2nd Amendment, regardless of what they say, or what they may have done in the past. When it comes down to the point where their vote is needed, they will always vote with the party leadership — and the leadership’s goal is to disarm the public.

Requiring training is just another incremental way to keep people from having guns. I guarantee the gun grabbers will ensure the tests, qualifications, and/or fees are eventually increased to the point that no one can pass them or afford them. There will of course be waivers put in place for those with money, connections, or a title.

The simple question is what does shall not be infringed mean. Gun Owners were tricked into giving up their Fifth and Fourth Amendment Rights in 1968 and 1993. We were told that the BATF would safeguard the info and in return for our sacrificing our rights the leftist Democrats would cease and desist from any further Gun Owner Control. Now of course we find out that BATF is sharing our “government interrogations” with the FBI and others and now the Democrats want more “common sense” gun owner control. Background checks only place a burden on gun owners. They won’t stop a “terrorist” from obtaining a gun. The guy had me until he said that.

What is Oath Keepers Stand on Congressional cede of power of private property rights and counsels among other things .How does Oath keepers feel about the UN being the new Federal Gov over the US Constitution effectively doing away with the Us Constitution and our Declaration of independence?http://climatechangedispatch.com/a-un-and-tribal-takeover/

Taking a rifle apart blind folded is a skill that is needed ,but will not shoot the guy on the other side or keep you from getting shot.War is Hell.People run for office and when they get in ,they become instant traitors to the founding ,because they do not understand it and are unwilling to understand it.Because of such fools many Americans like Hatti will die unarmed in the streets of America.